Case 1400853/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Goldsmith v Fuller Smith and Turner plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400853/2022
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Goldsmith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but also found there was a 100% likelihood that the claimant would have been dismissed had a fair process been followed.
On remedy, the tribunal applied s.122(3) ERA 1996 and reduced the basic award by 100% to nil. It also found that the claimant’s conduct was culpable and blameworthy and was the sole cause of his dismissal, so under s.123(6) ERA 1996 the compensatory award was reduced by 100% to nil.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but also found there was a 100% likelihood the claimant would have been dismissed even if a fair process had been followed. The basic award was reduced by 100% to nil under s.122(3) ERA 1996, and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% to nil under s.123(6) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122(3) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.